But we didn't see any issues at all in Miami, or Cleveland, or Iowa City, or Cincinnati, or Dallas, or Nashville, or Houston. All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
The irregularities in these key cities is highly suspected, especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software .. and that software is used in 40+ counties. All of those votes are going to need to be manually counted now.
As more work is done and the recounts being, I predict the differences between the hand and machine counts is going to be a significant indicator of election interference.
This is on its way to be the most contested election in history.
One has to be careful that comparisons are made between comparable entities. In this case, note that different states can begin processing absentee/mail-in votes at different times [0], so one state being able to handle absentee/mail-in vote processing without apparent incident does not necessarily say anything about how counting might progress in another state.
> Detroit, Philly, ..., Milwaukee
Absentee/mail-in vote processing/counting can only begin on Election Day.
> Atlanta, ..., Las Vegas
Signature verification can be performed upon receipt of the absentee/mail-in ballot, but actual counting can only start on Election Day
> Miami
Ballot verification/counting can start 22 days before Election Day
> or Cleveland, ..., or Cincinnati
Verification and scanning can occur before Election Day. Unclear whether "scanning" includes counting, or just how far ahead of time the process can start.
> or Iowa City
Affadavits may be reviewed the day before Election Day, but counting can only start on Election Day (and must be finished by 10 P.M. on Election Day)
> Or Dallas, ..., or Houston
Verification can be performed upon receipt. Jurisdictions with <= 100k people, counting starts on Election Day; for larger jurisdictions, counting can start at the end of the early voting by personal appearance period, which I think is 4 days before Election Day [1]
> or Nashville
Verification can be performed upon receipt, but counting can only start on Election Day.
So in short, some of the examples of cities that count "without incident" can conceivably do so because they have much more time to do so. Iowa City and Nashville are better comparisons, but that doesn't rule out some other factor that renders the comparison invalid.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
Do they actually have all their ballots counted, or do they simply not show up in news stories?
For example, Decision Desk HQ reports that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia have >99% of their ballots in, while Michigan, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, Nevada, California, and Washington all are reported to have >95% of their ballots in. So by those metrics, states in the first group are doing better than states in the second group, but some states in the second group get attention heaped upon them, while others seemingly pass under the radar.
New York is a particularly egregious example, with a reported 77.3-88.0% of its ballots in. And yet very little attention appears to be devoted to it.
(This assumes DDHQ's numbers are actually reasonable/accurate, of course)
> especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software
You seem to be mixing some stories.
From what I understand, the race whose results got reversed was for the Oakland County Board of Commissions [2]. The margin was 1127 votes.
The 6000 vote reversal was from Antrim county. The Michigan Secretary of State has put out a statement about that specific incident [3], where they claim that the error was due to human error, not software error (though it's not entirely unreasonable to say the software is not entirely blameless, as pointed out in [4] by a University of Michigan professor who claims to have looked into the incident [5]), and that no manual recount was involved.
[0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...
[1]: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html
[2]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...
[3]: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-544676--,00....
[4]: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/human-error-dom...
[5]: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...
edit: to balance parens
Have you done any searching for evidence? It is trivially easy to find. Paper looking at partisan voting methods: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24640 One of the presidents attempts to discredit mail in voting: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12888181603895582...
And of bigger importance, the election that just occurred, where mail in ballots were heavily partisan.
I see no evidence that this is the case, but certainly you'd expect differences in the apparent pattern based on state ballot counting procedures. Swing states get a lot more attention, and in addition, the swing states where the effect has been noticed plus Virginia all delay even the beginning of mail-in ballot processing to election day, some not allowing ballot counts of mail-in ballots until after the polls close. So, that forces any systematic differences in mail-in ballots to also produce aystematic differences in vote count over time, whereas systems where the mail-in ballots are preprocessed well before election day and have no required delay after the polls close for counting don't systematically create that issue.
Where is the evidence for this? Most states weren't particularly clear about exactly which ballots were being counted when, and didn't report distinct ballot cohorts. The GA data (where they were really good about it after Tuesday) doesn't show the effect you're talking about.
[edit: OK, you're just repeating this point without evidence again and again in this topic, despite being repeatedly asked for a citation. That doesn't seem like rational discussion, and I suspect you're just being a troll.]
